• Space/Science
  • GeekSpeak
  • Mysteries of
    the Multiverse
  • Science Fiction
  • The Comestible Zone
  • Off-Topic
  • Community
  • Flame
  • CurrentEvents

Recent posts

AI and the superconducting relativistic monkey collider RL July 26, 2025 10:14 pm (Off-Topic)

Trump's namecalling is no match for the Scots BuckGalaxy July 26, 2025 2:15 pm (Flame)

Retirement home Spirit cover -- yeah, we had better music. ER July 26, 2025 7:31 am (Off-Topic)

Maxwell's Silver Hammer ER July 26, 2025 6:58 am (CurrentEvents)

♫ I tell you to enjoy life I wish I could but it's too late ♫ BuckGalaxy July 22, 2025 1:32 pm (Off-Topic)

How Groupthink Protected Biden and Re-elected Trump, or put another way... BuckGalaxy July 19, 2025 2:32 pm (Flame)

Why Trump Can’t Shake Jeffrey Epstein BuckGalaxy July 18, 2025 8:07 pm (CurrentEvents)

Colbert cancelled. ER July 17, 2025 8:20 pm (CurrentEvents)

just passin' thru... ER July 16, 2025 2:08 pm (Space/Science)

Epic Epstein Magasphere Meltdown BuckGalaxy July 14, 2025 1:58 pm (CurrentEvents)

Home » Off-Topic

NYT: "In Top Jobs, There Are Almost as Many Men Named John as Women" April 24, 2018 11:53 am Robert

I need a little help parsing this headline in today’s NY Times. It seems to have two possible interpretations:

  • An equal number of men in top jobs are named “Women” as are named “John”
  • The number of women named “John” in top jobs is equal to the number of men named “John”

Damn these ambiguous headlines! The article’s paywalled, so I have to rely on the headline alone. Or clues in the URL: The file is named “women-and-men-named-john.html”, suggesting the second interpretation is correct. A bunch of women named “John”, in top jobs no less, would indeed be actuarially newsworthy.

Which one is it? Any ideas?

  • My guess (since I have done no research to back this up). is a third interpretation. by ER 2018-04-24 12:27:37

    Search

    The Control Panel

    • Log in
    • Register